Please note: we have been online over ten years, and we want The Trek BBS to continue as a free site. But if you block our ads we are at risk.Please consider unblocking ads for this site - every ad you view counts and helps us pay for the bandwidth that you are using. Thank you for your understanding.

Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.

Except with doctor who its a new actor in the role, same backstory and generally cares about the same people. What you're proposing is using new people who I would not necessarily give a flying crap about.

Well, unless you only like TOS then I'd say you've given a crap about another crew since so step outside your comfort zone once more and take a risk.

Slightly off topic just because the 9th Doctor looks in a mirror and makes a comment about his ears is not proof he just regenerated, I am sure we all make comments every morning about our appearance.

The production team and actor have both said in outside interviews that it's a reaction to the regeneration (See Eccleston on Jonathan Ross). Also, why would he be acting like he wasn't used to his new face? It couldn't be anything else but a regeneration reference.

Except with doctor who its a new actor in the role, same backstory and generally cares about the same people. What you're proposing is using new people who I would not necessarily give a flying crap about.

Well, unless you only like TOS then I'd say you've given a crap about another crew since so step outside your comfort zone once more and take a risk.

It took a few years before Picard and the crew were accepted by audiences, something the other spin-offs couldn't come close to. Even then, they had seven seasons before getting a movie. You weren't just introduced to them in a new movie without any prior introduction.

__________________
I have existed from the creation of the forum and I shall exist until the last thread is deleted from the server. Although I have taken the form of Awesome Possum, I am all posters as I am no poster and therefore I am a Mod.

Can I repectfully say, IMHO, that the Kirk character pandered to the non-fans perception of him, and not 'a stack of books with legs', .

On the other hand, we never actually saw "the stack of books with legs" onscreen. That was one line of dialogue in one episode, as opposed to 79 episodes and 7 movies in which Kirk was a dynamic, swashbuckling leading man. So, yeah, when you think of Kirk, does anybody really think of him as a "stack of books with legs." The "fact" that Kirk used to be a book worm is a bit of trivia, not the essence of the character in the popular imagination. It has nothing to do with the character we actually grew up watching.

So, yeah, I think the movies should feature the Kirk the audience expects to see, regardless of some obscure bit of trivia from one old episode.

"When the legend becomes the truth, print the legend."

Worse - the lined referred to appeared in the second pilot - where they hadn't even had time to develop the characters, hell, Spock is practically smiling in that same second pilot episode when he states;

"Ah, one of your Earth emotions."

There's also the fact that in that articular pilot it was stated one of Spock's ancestors had human blood - which TPTALLY
contradicts what was shown in Season 2's "Journey to Babel" - where we see it ISN'T an ancestor (meaning passed on person); it's Spock's living mother.

Just gooes to show how much you can cherry pick out of 79 eps. and 6 feature films if you want to hate on a well done reboot where the DID in fact, really capture the essence of these characters (particularly Karl Urban as Doctor leonard McCoy).

So you also believe thumbtack was in grave danger of becoming a "Star Trek universe fan" had their insidious subculture not be "exposed".

First of all, as far as I know, the actors were all about ten years younger (with the glaring exception of Pike); so I'm not sure why you weren't convinced they were ten years younger. Their age is just a fact, it doesn't require convincing.

Sorry, I was imprecise, but I would never have anticipated your interpretation of my comments in a million years. Certainly they were ten years younger, that’s the problem. I meant the idea of putting the entire crew on the bridge of a capital ship, combined with the way they did it, ten years before it happened in TOS was unconvincing. Kirk himself was the most prominent example of course, but in addition, the original cast were made the ages they were for a reason.

Secondly, most of the reaction I saw (and the reaction I had, as a TOS fan first and foremost) was that Abrams and the cast DID get the characters right. They NAILED them without seeming like they were doing an impersonation. That was the consensus among Trekkies, from what I saw at the time.

Those were Trekkies who liked the movie I take it? To me only Bones seem more or less the same person and I believe there was some criticism because of that (as well as praise of course). Sulu and Chekov didn’t register much one way or the other from my point of view. Spock started well enough but got "nobbled" (in more ways than one). Kirk, Uhura and Scotty were just unrecognisable, except for a glimpse of "Kirk" at the end.

… I saw the film five times in the theaters, to accompany Trek-hating friends of mine who were interested in seeing it. I don't evangelize Trek, but when someone I know expresses an interest in it I don't waste any time. Every last one of them expressed interest in seeing it because they'd heard (not from me) that it was a reboot. …

Well I might be too restrictive when it comes to definitions but reboot to me means "To discard all previous continuity and start anew". That didn’t happen. OK, most seem to feel that "reboot" is close enough. More likely it is just the currently fashionable term and is used for everything.

What I am more interested in is how your friends found out it was a "reboot" as opposed to a "prequel", which was the impression I got before I saw the movie? The official promotion came across as a prequel, though I doubt anything actually stated that. Was there anything in official publicity to say it was a reboot, or even mention the new universe? My guess is your friends found some entertainment sites that may have been speculating along those lines but I never bothered with those. Heck, I’m not even the sort of fan who would immediate start worrying about how they could fit such pretty young things into the original time-line! But despite being a fan of all past Trek, I could tell from official material this was likely a major departure in substance as well as style, and almost didn’t see it. I had no idea at that point it would promote a relatively "pessimistic" version of Trek from a number of pionts of view. In any event I doubt your friends wanted to see it simply "because" it was a reboot or a prequel. More likely they just though it looked good (ie. more "mainstream").

I tried to get them all into watching the shows afterward. A few gave them a chance, but only one kept watching. Yet we're ALL going to see Into Darkness.

Hmmm. And that doesn’t tell you anything? No, I suppose not.

A Very Jewel Christmas wrote:

It took a few years before Picard and the crew were accepted by audiences, something the other spin-offs couldn't come close to. Even then, they had seven seasons before getting a movie. You weren't just introduced to them in a new movie without any prior introduction.

However Trek fans are now used to that idea and new motives have the same problem all the time. Its all about whether the characters can "grab" an audience which in this case managed to overcome any resistance to these "interlopers".

Star Trek is a series of movies and tv shows, not a "universe," and the people running Paramount would have to be dimwits to throw hundreds of millions of dollars at trying to satisfy the relatively few folks who take the "Star Trek Universe" seriously.

I mean, if you care what Sarium Krellide is you're nobody's target audience.

Can I repectfully say, IMHO, that the Kirk character pandered to the non-fans perception of him, and not 'a stack of books with legs', .

On the other hand, we never actually saw "the stack of books with legs" onscreen. That was one line of dialogue in one episode, as opposed to 79 episodes and 7 movies in which Kirk was a dynamic, swashbuckling leading man.

Worse - the line referred to appeared in the second pilot - where they hadn't even had time to develop the characters, hell, Spock is practically smiling in that same second pilot episode when he states;

"Ah, one of your Earth emotions."

Good point. Did the show ever describe the young Kirk in those terms again, or was that just an odd artifact from the pilot that was largely forgotten as the show found itself--like Dr. Piper and the phaser rifle and "Jame R. Kirk"?

However Trek fans are now used to that idea and new motives have the same problem all the time. Its all about whether the characters can "grab" an audience which in this case managed to overcome any resistance to these "interlopers".

Paramount isn't in the business of making a minority of Trek fans happy. They want to make money from the widest possible audience. Given that Kirk and the rest of the crew are known all over the world and by far the best known crew, they went with them. Even fans didn't care for the crews as time went on, especially when it got to Voyager and Enterprise. If the fans aren't buying it, no one will. Maybe a whole new crew could have worked with the right conditions despite all evidence pointing to the opposite conclusion. But using Kirk was a better bet and Paramount did extremely well with it.

__________________
I have existed from the creation of the forum and I shall exist until the last thread is deleted from the server. Although I have taken the form of Awesome Possum, I am all posters as I am no poster and therefore I am a Mod.

The only thing that can last 40 years is actual human history...and even that is open to interpretation.

Look at Enterprise. It could've been a great addition to the universe, and I think it was a good stand-alone series...however, thanks to the 600 hours of Star Trek that preceded it, it didn't "fit". As others have said, it was weighed down with rules and timelines and what color meant what and fan boys bending over backwards to explain why we've ever heard of the two major villian species until now.

Ergo, thanks to US...the show sort of sucked, we stopped watching, and they spent the last season explaining to us why Klingons in the near future were ridged while the Klingons of the not-so-near future looked like Mexicans. Of course, we can't suspend disbelief for a second and put on our big boy pants and rationally understand or comprehend that makeup, set design, or effects of today are lightyears better than the grease paint, balsa wood, and ships on strings of TOS.

No. In universe explanations or shut up.

We weren't ever going to get another shot at the prime universe. We had been watching series after series after series birthed from the loins of Roddenberry and people were tired of it. We were tired of it. It's not 1987 anymore and television has changed. Things are darker. We weren't ever going to get another movie based on the primes - what would have been the setting? No one cared about Enterprise enough to make a movie and the TNG cast got there horrible curtain call. The other shows had been off the air for a decade.

So, that leaves us with a new ship or crew. Which would've worked swimmingly. Nothing says blockbuster like people you don't care about doing something you don't know in a place that's totally new to you.

Is there any other franchise that has to hire historians for their own fictional universe? I know Doctor Who relies on what the writer likes and ignores what they don't like. Dropping that weight is the best thing that ever happened to Trek and frees it to go places we can't even imagine.

__________________
I have existed from the creation of the forum and I shall exist until the last thread is deleted from the server. Although I have taken the form of Awesome Possum, I am all posters as I am no poster and therefore I am a Mod.

Is there any other franchise that has to hire historians for their own fictional universe? I know Doctor Who relies on what the writer likes and ignores what they don't like. Dropping that weight is the best thing that ever happened to Trek and frees it to go places we can't even imagine.

They could have rebooted the franchise without falling into the LCD pit Abrams has dropped it into.

And yet a movie that stripped away everything that was good about Star Trek in favor of blatant blockbuster mass appeal designed to appeal to the lowest common denominator was not the answer.

That film was not Star Trek. It was a generic blockbuster with the Star Trek name slapped on it, and it was an abomination.

What was stripped away? We had the Enterprise, a villain obsessed with revenge like half the of the movie villains and Kirk seduced a green woman.

What I say was classic Trek with better pacing and the characters that weren't Kirk, Spock or McCoy contributing to the plot. Uhura does more in the new movie than she did in three seasons and six movies and it isn't repeating what her headphone said or calling someone.

__________________
I have existed from the creation of the forum and I shall exist until the last thread is deleted from the server. Although I have taken the form of Awesome Possum, I am all posters as I am no poster and therefore I am a Mod.